25 November, 2006

I "trust" everyone had a good one, as the Paranoid Family had a wonderful turkey supper and I was able to clean up my system which was in dire need of maintenance. I should shortly return to my abnormal level of posting.

After being without a consistently workable E-mail for the past two and half days (ISP and system conversion), I was sorting through the built-up deluge, and came across a request for linkage to Fort Liberty. I reviewed the site and like what I see and have added the site under the Links section.

19 November, 2006

I have never entered a blog before, and I do not recall even having visited a site dedicated to awards for blogs before, but found a link in a blog about it. For me, there is only one choice for Best Blog- David Codrea's War On Guns.

David Hardy has a short and interesting post up about a new suit filed here in Texas:

Plaintiff is an American citizen who lives in Britain. Challenge is to 18 USC 922(a)(9), which states that a person who is a resident of no state can only buy firearms for lawful sporting purposes, which presumably excludes self-defense.

Here is the direct (thank you Mr., Hardy for posting it) link for a PDF copy of the complaint (WARNING 1.3MB PDF).

Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smokingBy Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff

Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one's car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

"We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal," said Councilman Dave Warden. "What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter."

Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.

The council was concerned about people smoking in multi-unit residences.

"I would just like to say 'no smoking' and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket," said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach.

Yes, TODAY, a CITIZEN has the RIGHT to have the POLICE GIVE them a TICKET!

Go on over and take a look at the updates and the conditions for bail the judge is setting:

The conditions include giving up any weapons, posting the deed of the man's property to the court, electronic monitoring, no attending militia meetings and moving from his residence to his daughter's home in Elkins until the trial is over.

12 November, 2006

I've talked about the necessity defense as a way around laws that prohibit carrying weapons for reasonable self-defense. Necessity is a rarely used legal defense employed when people accused of crimes claim to have been forced to break a law for simple survival.

Examples of this would be a person who is in danger of starving, dehydration or threatened by weather conditions breaking into a building to get whatever is needed for survival.

The same principal would apply someone who is threatened by crime and poor or slow police response to calls for help where he must live or work.

Recently that was found to be the case in a Maryland prison where a judge allowed the defense where a convict armed himself with a prison made knife and killed another inmate. Self-defense is the law of the land even in prisons. The Circuit Court Judge, Pamela North instructed a jury that a person may arm himself "in reasonable anticipation of an attack." Yes, even a prison convict has a right to self-defense and the necessity defense.

The link was sent to me from a very good friend, and thought it definitely worth posting a link to.

First thing this afternoon, while catching up with some news and blogs, I headed over to David Codrea's The War on Guns and found this post. After downloading the linked PDF, I started to read it and just thought everyone needed reminding of this (on page 5):

"A machine gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen used for the lawful defense of person, family, or community, is one thing, that same gun in the hands of someone committing a criminal act, or with the OBVIOUS intent to commit a criminal act, is an entirely different matter. It is simply NOT PERMISSABLE, under our State and Federal Constitutions, to deprive a law abiding citizen of a constitutional right under the false -assumption that doing so will have ANY effect in stopping a criminal intent on committing a crime. In fact, historically, it is GOVERNMENTS that have shown, time and time again, that THEY are the ones who are most dangerous with Arms In their hands. Wars, oppressions, dictatorships, warlords, and rule by criminal gangs are more often than not the legacy and result of government disarming the populace and retaining all "control" of Arms for themselves. "Control" is what governments do worst, especially when it comes to Arms, and that is precisely WHY we have a Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution as well as similar "Declaration of Rights" articles in the various State Constitutions."

I am sure much of their funds will be used for Mr. Fincher's defense, and I do not wish to add to their bill, so I have placed the PDF here (WARNING 1.9MB) and you should download it, read it, and print it so that you have a handy copy available. I will be posting updates as I am able and also want to point out that this did not take very long after the elections to start ramping up, now did it?

There was letter expressing concern about some of the M1 carbines having 17.75 inch barrels and therefore being under the NFA 34

The NRA responded with:

What does it matter? The Carbine has no sporting purpose anyway..

This has been one of the main problems with the NRA leadership in my opinion. Giving ground throughout the years because the laws didn't affect affect hunters or target shooters
Hammer | Homepage | 11.10.06 - 7:24 am | #

And I told him:

You scan it and tell me where to download it (or E-mail it to me), and I will give it a permanent spot on the blog and site.

So, first thing this morning, Hammer sent them to me. Now, his scanner is down so he took photos of them (1, 2, 3) and the original images will not fit so I sharpened them and resized them and here, in order below, are the new images and the full size ones can be viewed by clicking on the title beneath the images below.

I want to thank Hammer for sending them to me and I want the rest of you to understand that, yes, I am slamming the NRA, but strictly for the attitude I mentioned in the post referenced above as I do stand by my statement and opinion that NRA does deserve to be honored for many things- I just prefer to understand that the NRA is happy with helping to foist un-Constitutional laws downs it 3+ million members throats and has since the beginning...

1805 - The "Corps of Discovery" reached the Pacific Ocean. The expedition was lead by William Clark and Meriwether Lewis. The journey had begun on May 14, 1804, with the goal of exploring the Louisiana Purchase territory.

I shared the comments below with David Codrea in an E-mail exchange yesterday after reading this post to his blog. He suggested that I post it, and after reflection and a good nights sleep, I have decided to do so:

I am a Life Member of the NRA, but do not actively support them any longer (have not for five years) and I know you really do not know me from Adam, but what I am about to relate is the flat out truth as I was told.

A few years ago, I attended the Gun Rights Forum Policy conference in Houston, Texas. The forum was held at the Hilton at the airport which was convenient for many people (never mind that the hotel was ALMOST properly posted AGAINST Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees- not ALL entrances were as IS required by Texas law), and the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul was a speaker at the event. I did have the privilege of hearing him speak and shaking his hand afterwards, and I also know for a fact that the good Dr. was spoken of highly by many in attendance. I was also told, by a man whose credentials are above reproach in my eyes, who related the conversation he had with one of the high muckety-mucks of the NRA at the time (my source was a BOD member then) who said he was told that the good Dr. was considered a joke on the Hill and lacking in respect by other members.

I was reminded of this conversation when I spoke to this man again this morning who further elaborated that the lack of support and outright working towards getting rid of the good Dr. is the same reason that Tanya Metaksa was forced out. She was too staunch a supporter, just as Dr. Ron Paul is, and the NRA "leadership" wants him gone.

The above is one of the reasons I do not actively support the NRA any longer, others are:

1. Refusal to work towards overturning the 1934 NFA.
2. Refusal to work towards overturning the 1968 CGA.
CURRENT AS OF 08/24/11 1 & 2.
3. Lack of real effort to overturn The Hughes Amendment.

These refusals alone are onerous enough, but together, represent an attitude that was prevalent for so long in the NRA, it took the 1977 Revolt to change things, but unfortunately, it has since been dismantled and the elite returned to control (the best example of which is Charlton Heston's unprecedented four years as President of the NRA).

Nevertheless, the NRA does some very good things and for this it does need to be honored, but the NRA's attitude in standing firm for what it so long touted itself to be, is another, and why I do not actively support them any longer.

05 November, 2006

CSMK sent me the link to the video, and it is a twelve minute shortened version of Obsession the Movie, but unfortunately, the link does not work and the site appears down (I suspect due to traffic). So I tried the Google cache, and it works. However, Google's cache can be fickle and things it has cached can be lost rather quickly, so it has been converted to an AVI and is available here for download (WARNING 33.32MB in size). I do suggest that you try the link in the title to begin with, as I am sure the folks who produced it want the traffic (and deserve it), as well as for you to buy their video but I cannot find any links for purchasing as of yet.

An NRO SymposiumEditor's Note: On Friday, Vanity Fair issued a press release highlighting excerpts of a piece in their January issue on "neoconservative" supporters of the war in Iraq who today, unsurprisingly, have some negative things to say about how the war is going and how the Bush administration has been handling it.

In the wake of the press release - which has gotten considerable play on the Internet - some of those "neoconservatives" highlighted in the article have responded to the excerpts and its misrepresentations, in some cases, of what they said. We collect some of those reactions - including from David Frum, Michael Ledeen, Michael Rubin, and Richard Perle - below.

What! We are shocked! Shocked that our words could be misconstrued simply by the timing of the release of our comments!

Richard PerleVanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

Hmm, all this wailing about misconstrued words this past week, first Lurch and now these fleeing rats- it does make me wonder if Perle cried when he wrote his response...

04 November, 2006

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The Democratic gubernatorial candidate faced a potential setback for a second day Friday, denying a newspaper report that said he called a male reporter "a Republican whore."

Hatch at first denied using the word. In a debate Friday night, he said he might have used that language but didn't believe that he did.

Forum Communications Co., which owns several Minnesota newspapers, reported that Hatch lashed out at a reporter questioning him Thursday about a gaffe by his running mate, Judi Dutcher.

Dutcher had earlier gotten stumped by a question about the ethanol fuel blend E-85; Minnesota is a major ethanol producer.

The newspaper chain said Thursday that reporter Scott Wente asked Hatch via telephone about Dutcher's knowledge of ethanol and why she wasn't available to discuss the issue. The account said Hatch abruptly ended the interview with: "You're nothinag more than a Republican whore. Goodbye," and then hung up.

However, this is the most telling:

Hatch said during the debate that he regrets how he handled the flap but doesn't think his temper would undermine his ability to lead.

You should have stuck by your guns, wussy boy, that is if you own any to begin with, but I figure you are just another ass-wipe whose legs do not join at the top...

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.

byDavid RoseVF.COM November 3, 2006

I remember sitting with Richard Perle in his suite at London's Grosvenor House hotel and receiving a private lecture on the importance of securing victory in Iraq. "Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform," he said. "It won't be Westminster overnight, but the great democracies of the world didn't achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. The Iraqis have a decent chance of succeeding." Perle seemed to exude the scent of liberation, as well as a whiff of gunpowder. It was February 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the culmination of his long campaign on behalf of regime change in Iraq, was less than a month away.

Three years later, Perle and I meet again at his home outside Washington, D.C. It is October, the worst month for U.S. casualties in Iraq in almost two years, and Republicans are bracing for losses in the upcoming midterm elections. As he looks into my eyes, speaking slowly and with obvious deliberation, Perle is unrecognizable as the confident hawk who, as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had invited the exiled Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi to its first meeting after 9/11. "The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat?an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"- is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."